Asia

Japan and the atom

Nuclearphobia

THIS IS a ghostly time of year in Japan. Not only is it the annual Obon season, when the spirits of the dead return home. August 6th is also the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945, when the Japanese are reminded of the invisible horrors of radiation.

In her maternity bed in this peach-farming town about 40km (25 miles) from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, Akemi Makuta, a 40-year-old mother, knows all about such fears. Since the March 2011 nuclear disaster, “radiation has been preying on my mind the whole time,” she says. It makes her stop her elder children picking flowers, jumping in puddles, and touching wet umbrellas. She doesn’t like taking her newborn daughter, Mika, out for walks. She knows this is bad for her children’s well-being, but she cannot stop taking precautions.

What she is rarely told is that, according to health experts, her fear of radiation may be more harmful than the radiation itself. This is an issue of deep controversy. Many anti-nuclear accidents argue that there are not enough studies of low-level radiation to judge the risks accurately. But Shunichi Yamashita, son of a hibakusha, or atomic-bomb survivor, and vice-president of Fukushima Medical University, is adamant. Recently returned from a trip to Chernobyl, he insists the fallout in Fukushima is far less severe than the Soviet Union’s nuclear accident of 1986, despite having reached the same technical status (Level 7) because a majority of the radioisotopes were blown out to sea. Also the government quickly stopped consumption of contaminated food and milk, which reduced the potential of thyroid problems, such as those suffered by children around Chernobyl.

Several studies bear out his views. A fortnight after the disaster, the authorities screened the thyroids of 1,149 children exposed to radiation and found that the maximum equivalent thyroid dose was 35 millisieverts (mSv). This is much less than at Chernobyl. Researchers from Japan’s HirosakiUniversity followed up the study a few weeks later. Their findings, published recently, showed iodine-131 active in the thyroids of 46 out of 62 evacuees. The average dose was about 3.5mSv in adults and the equivalent of 4.2mSv in children—which is better than 100 times less than the average for Chernobyl evacuees, 490mSv.

According to a draft report of the Fukushima Health Management Survey Group, which is canvassing the prefecture’s 2m residents on their health problems, ultrasound examinations of 38,114 children in Fukushima have so far revealed no evidence of thyroid problems. However, because thyroid cancer takes time to appear, the survey will continue for three years.

Dr Yamashita says a questionnaire answered by 15,000 villagers (of the 30,000 who were evacuated from near the nuclear power plant) showed that in the four months after the disaster, almost all had an accumulated exposure of less than 10mSv. This suggests a rate far below the rate of 100mSv per year at which health problems are proven to emerge, he says.

His views on the relative safety of radiation exposure below 100mSv are controversial, especially in Fukushima. But it is supported by the Hiroshima-based Radiation Effects Research Council, an American-Japanese scientific body whose studies date back to 1947. At times, the government, media and scientists have issued a bewildering mixture of messages, some of which suggest that much lower levels could be dangerous—especially to children. Dr Yamashita has been given the disparaging moniker “Dr 100 millisievierts” for sticking to his guns, and he remains unrepentant. He notes that while nobody in Fukushima has died as a result of radiation, there were 761 victims of “disaster-related death”, especially old people uprooted from homes and hospital because of forced evacuation and other nuclear-related measures.

As in Chernobyl, he argues, the psychological trauma of evacuation, overlaid by the fear of radiation, poses the biggest health risk. According to the Fukushima health survey, 14.6% of almost 9,000 pregnant women who replied indicated some feelings of depression. As in Chernobyl, the empty bottles of sake outside temporary housing complexes are an indication that more such trouble may lie ahead. Yet Dr Yamashita says too little attention is being paid to the post-disaster trauma. There is a “complete shortage” of well-trained local staff to act as counsellors.

He is not willing to advocate a return to the radiated areas, though surveys after Chernobyl showed that those who stayed in contaminated areas coped better psychologically than those who were forced to leave. There is still too much mistrust and anger towards Tepco, operator of the plant, he says. And infrastructure, health facilities, jobs and land are still in disarray.

The trouble is, as David Ropeik, author of “How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don’t Always Match the Facts”, puts it, the fear of radiation, though it conflicts with the facts, is understandable. Radiation causes cancer, which makes it scary. It is undetectable and hard to understand, which leaves people feeling powerless. The radiation from a nuclear accident is imposed on people, unlike medical scans or air travel. It is man-made, unlike radiation from the sun. There is a history of stigmatisation, dating back to the atomic bombs.

Against such powerfully emotive factors, it is no wonder the science is given short shrift. But people like Mrs Makuta may benefit as much from hearing the positive side of the story. As her obstetrician, Hiroshi Nishida, puts it, the precautions she may need to take may be no more than reminding her children to wash their hands and gargle after they’ve been outside. In Japan, that is something that children mostly do anyway.

There has been quite a bit of research on why nuclear energy makes people particularly fearful. Nuclear radiation ticks all the boxes for increasing the propensity to fear. It is invisible and exists in unknowable quantities; people don’t feel in control of it, and neither do they understand it. It has the dreaded qualities of causing an increased likelihood of cancer and birth defects.

Nuclear power has been remarkably safe, but that hasn’t stopped people being exceedingly anxious about it. Just as travel by aeroplane and train is staggeringly safe, people still worry far more about plane crashes than car crashes.

The Fukushima accident in Japan was a really serious event but some scientists may question why some people have been allowed in referring to the release of radiation as a ‘catastrophe’. To determine whether or not that is justified has to be put into the context of the earthquake and tsunami which led to it – and which has been the direct cause of massive suffering, which is still continuing. There are threats emanating from the nuclear power station, but largely they are limited and they are quantifiable.

One of the biggest risks from radiation is the psychological damage it causes. After incidents like the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, and the Chernobyl accident, there was substantial psychological trauma, even among people who were not directly affected, because there is such a fear of being exposed to radiation and its long-term consequences.

Ignorance about nuclear power is staggering everywhere. When I taught pre-med physics, where we covered radiation dosage, many of my very bright, very well-informed students thought that a nuclear power plant could go off like an atomic bomb.

In September there will be an interim report from the United Nations (UNSCEAR) on Fukushima. The conclusion will be that there will be no health effects from Fukushima now nor in the future. The chairman already stated this in the press conference in February.

Did you also know that extensive studies on Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims who received less than 100 mSv in the matter of a few days also showed no observable health effects? And there were more than 50000 subjects! The data showed that they were even a bit healthier than the rest!

The kicker about radiation detection is that you can detect part-per-billion quantities or less. Thus cesium can very easily be detected in urine, or other substances even if the amount is so vanishingly small that it cannot hope to give you even a fraction of a percent of your background radiation dose.

"have to wear a badge" does not translate into dose, it simply conveys a wish to measure if there is any radiation. Unless you prefer the government doesn't try. Also badges are used to estimate inhalation and ingestion of radioactive materials. PS.

The people repairing the power plant *Fukushima Daiichi, not be confused with Fukushima Daini, a seperate power plant* have not succumbed to any illnesses or died or will likely ever suffer any illnesses as a result of their work on the powerplant.

I suggest getting an idea of what engineers do before labeling their understanding of nature as "poor" or implying that they aren't concerned. In fact, I think it's probably fairer to say that their understanding of nature is better than yours.

Instead of nuclearphobia maybe it's worth talking about govphobia, or trustphilia. Maybe the release wasnt as bad. Maybe no one should have evacuated. And had there been sufficient information from a trusted source, it may well have turned out that way.

Trust. A lot of people in Japan trusted the government. Trusted the declaration of safety, that contaminated food was removed from the foodchain, that there was "no immediate effect on health". The very fact that I put this phrase in quotation marks (as it's done in Japan these days) shows what once was meant to reassure, is now a derogatory term.

A lot of the actions that were taken by Tepco and the government turned out to be misleading, or lies. They may have meant well - but the point is over and over again statements were made that proofed to be false, and worse, that these statements were made in the full knowledge that they were false. From the start (or rather, 2 weeks in - the first 2 weeks were not that bad in terms of information, even for a foreigner in Japan) it was an exercise in obfuscation, and only breaking the bad news slowly. Meltdown - no of course not. 3 months later... oh actually... sorry about that... actually metthrough... yeah that may have been 3 actually... And as the tapes now show, there was full knowledge on the day, while intentionally false statements were made to the public. Same with the food... first the statement that all is under control, then 2 shipments of beef were found to be contaminated above provisional safety limits, then 100, then 1000, and after 6000 shipments or so they stopped publishing the numbers. And as anyone with kids knows, that these shipments were intentionally shipped to schools because they had fixed contracts with the suppliers and therefore consumers who were least likely to complain - that for many, and mostly mothers, meant that the last nugget of trust was lost, permanently.

If you are talking about nuclearphobia - I would argue it is the simple reaction to what discredited proven liars are saying. If a politician in Japan or Tepco now said the grass was green, a lot of people (including myself) would not take this at face value without a significant of questioning.

I dislike this article. It comments on a symptom and not the cause. As such it is very superficial reporting. Given that the subscription price of the Economist in Japan is about three times of that in the States, I would expect better quality than News of The World.

It is ridiculous to state that tests have shown no evidence of thyroid problems, but that is the information that non Japanese speakers will get from Japanese authorities. If you can read Japanese, look at these results issued by the Fukushima Prefecture. Over 30% of 3,765 children tested had thyroid cysts or tumours. This is a high percentage, extremely abnormal, as previous published studies by Yamashita himself would indicate (if you bothered to check instead of taking him at his word). http://www.pref.fukushima.jp/imu/kenkoukanri/240125shiryou.pdf
The Japanese public knows him now not as Yamashita, but as "Damashita" which means "I fooled you."
In other news, "the government quickly stopped consumption of contaminated food and milk" is not a true statement. The government temporarily suspended shipment of certain foods from areas of production which it assumed sustained the bulk of contamination. In fact, it did not know at the time how widespread the contamination was and, while checking very little, did its best to pretend contamination was minimal. It tried (and still tries) to shame people into consuming food that it knew was highly likely to be contaminated, calling it unwarranted discrimination to avoid suspect foodstuffs. It has done no studies of iodine contamination in neighbouring prefectures that sustained very heavy caesium deposition, as heavy as much of Fukushima. Also, local officials have since encouraged the use of contaminated food in school lunches and are testing very little of the produce from areas that should have been permanently quarantined from March, 2011. By the way, gargling does nothing to void the respiratory system of inhaled contaminants. Nor does it purge children's bodies of contaminants ingested in food that the government urges us to continue eating.

This article is simply disgusting.
"her fear of radiation may be more harmful than the radiation itself"...
Does the author know that more and more children in the north-east part of Japan have cesium detected from their urine?
Does the author know that not only children of Fukushima, but also of surrounding prefectures, have to wear a badge that measures the amount of radioactivity they have been exposed to (excluding inner contamination)?
If "her fear of radiation may be more harmful than the radiation itself" is true, please come to the Fukushima nuclear plant to repair it.

You are aware that 1 Sievert is a LETHAL dose of radiation for humans, so worrying about 5.5% increase in mutation risk is moot. This is one of the case when tests on lab animals yield meaningless numbers for humans...

Most of the people in the evacuation zone can go home and should go home. In Hiroshima, two months after the atomic bomb, the public transportation was already running and the city was rebuilding. That is when people were saying there will be no grass growing in Hiroshima for 70 years.

TEPCO also should seriously consider suing General Electric for putting the diesel generators underground. TEPCO bashing continues but I think the GE was also negligent.

To be honest, I've always thought the Economist was rather good. But having read this article (and a couple of others that similarly adhered to the dishonest Japanese government line following the disaster last year) I think I might never buy a copy ever again. I wonder how many people posting comments here have actually been to Japan, or were here when the disaster struck, or have ever had to consider the choice of whether to abandon their home because of a nuclear meltdown, and the implications for their family, work, financial security. Amongst those who have, I wonder how many had to do so in a complete absence of trustworthy material, or how many have taken personal responsibility for trying to find good information in that environment and even invested in scientific grade measuring equipment only for the government and media to run campaign to discredit them, while introducing new laws to control the distribution of scientifically gathered information on the internet. And I wonder how many of those people have watched their entire community shatter between those who accept a reasonable possibility of harm and take steps to protect themselves and their families responsibly, and those who do not, but prefer instead to attack anyone who dares threaten their denial through their life choices. They are still doing it... just read a few of the comments on this post.

The subject is radiophobia. Radiation, like electricity, is an invisible, insensible hazard. You can't detect it by the senses, but must rely on technology to be aware of it. That observation itself justifies a certain amount of fear. By the same token, about 200 (or so) Japanese die annually of electrocution, but this does not disturb politicians or the public. Anyone who suggested banning electricity would be called a crackpot. Certainly, many more die of electrocution than from radiation poisoning.
Radiophobia also makes people uneasy when they know that the hazard is lingering over many years, and the health effects could also take years to manifest themselves. Those fears are valid.
As at Chernobyl individual exposure to ten or twenty times normal background radiation may be less harmful than smoking, but those who are told to be frightened about it would rather not take their chances.
I do not take sides; I merely make observations about radiophobia.

So, if I get it right we are trying to reach a kind of scientific backed consensus that radiation is not a problem and does not consist a more serious hazard to human beings' health than psycological distress or electrocution, as stated by another fellow... Please, don't fall back in cold war propaganda...